"You would think." Why would we think this? The US had landed unmanned landers on the moon before Apollo, returning, for the time, decent quality imagery, so they would have good idea what the lunar surface was like. So, let's imagine they had to build a set for a faked moon landing. What's stopping them from using said imagery, as well as those from released USSR photos from their own lander program, as the basis for their fakery? So even if Apollo was faked, and what you say about regolith was true, the Apollo images would cleave to the appearance what you say. The fact they don't means either a) the film-makers and/or their handlers were phenomenally stupid in building sets that didn't reflect known reality while trying to simulate it, or b) maybe, just maybe, you are wrong. I am not an astrogeologist, nor do I play one on TV, but I sure as heck know which has fewer assumptions attached.

Yet most rocks and boulders seen in the photos are clean and pristine.

ITYM "...appear to my untrained eye clean and pristine."

Did you get a chance to dust off any however thin layer of regolith on a rock with a fine brush?

Are you aware that even micrometeorite impacts are violent events? I'm just a garden variety physicist, but can tell you with confidence that most of that micrometeorite will become a fluid and expand due to the heat produced in the collision. If I sprinkle a large flat area with a lot of tiny explosions, I would expect a somewhat even distribution of regolith. Tiny explosion on the top of a rock will cause the regolith to settle at the base of the rock, on average. So I wouldn't be at all surprised to find only the tiniest of dust layers on rocks. (The house rock being different. It all depends on impact energy how far the tiny explosions distribute the impact debris).

► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.► Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition

Hi Abaddon et al., I think you guys are missing the point. Virtually all the Apollo surface photos show the rocks or boulders with no build up of any Regolith layer. You would think, depending on circumstances, rocks would show various depths of Regolith layers. But the photos don’t show that. And contrary to one poster’s comments, the fine micro-particle layer of Regolith build up on the top surface of the moon is from dust particles that are dispersed during meteor and micrometeor impacts. (Atleast that is how the theory goes)

Actually no, that is not how the theory goes.

Quote

If the impact removes the Regolith off a rock 2 inches above the ground why doesn’t it remove the fine layer of Regolith at the base of the rock 2 inches below? Even if the rock lands there because of a meteor impact, there would be a dispersement of Regolith around the rock. Yet what we see in all these photos are Regolith free rocks and boulders but the bases of these rocks and boulders are buried in a Regolith layer. How can this be? Thanks.

Again, that is not how lunar regolith is formed.

When the real world does not confirm to your preconceptions, it is time you changed them to match the reality.

Your basic assumption appears that lunar regolith forms by gentle settling from the sky, like snowfall in your words. It does not. It forms much more episodically and violently than that.

And contrary to one poster’s comments, the fine micro-particle layer of Regolith build up on the top surface of the moon is from dust particles that are dispersed during meteor and micrometeor impacts. (Atleast that is how the theory goes)

Yes, but that's nothing like snowfall. With no atmosphere to impede their progress those microfine particles hit at several thousand miles per hour. That's not going to 'settle' on the top of a rock. It's like being sandblasted, not covered in snow.

Quote

And with all due respect, Abaddon comments that impacts will create these “clean” rocks is somewhat nonsensical. If the impact removes the Regolith off a rock 2 inches above the ground why doesn’t it remove the fine layer of Regolith at the base of the rock 2 inches below?

Who says it's a fine layer of regolith? That's been building up for billions of years. In most places it's metres thick.

Quote

Even if the rock lands there because of a meteor impact, there would be a dispersement of Regolith around the rock.

Which is then evened out by further millions of years of regolith buildup.

Quote

Yet what we see in all these photos are Regolith free rocks and boulders but the bases of these rocks and boulders are buried in a Regolith layer. How can this be?

If you want to know how it can be, fine, but again are you willing to consider that your expectations being wrong is the more likely explanation than NASA faking a whole bunch of images to 'look good' but be unrealistic if they are trying to convince everyone they are real?

Regolith is not like snow. It's like a sandblaster. A very slow one operating over geological timescales. If you expect it to be like snow then you are barking up entirely the wrong tree. Let that go and you might get somewhere.

Logged

"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!" - Dara O'Briain

Yes, but that's nothing like snowfall. With no atmosphere to impede their progress those microfine particles hit at several thousand miles per hour. That's not going to 'settle' on the top of a rock. It's like being sandblasted, not covered in snow.

That would seem to be the crux of the biscuit here - a failure to stop thinking in terms of how dust and other small particles behave in the terrestrial environment where they settle gradually thanks to the atmosphere.

It would be more remarkable if every rock did have a thick layer of regolith on top of it. Angle of incidence and all that.

Our protagonist also says "virtually every rock" and "most rocks", which suggests that he has seen some photographs were there is a layer of regolith on rocks that meet his arbitrary criteria of acceptability. Why is he happy with those and not the others? Which photographs are they?

Thanks Smartcooky and your Angle of Repose study. Atleast someone here has attempted to use some science to explain things. Having said that, angle of repose issues really are not applicable to this topic. Perhaps on a very, very tiny rock this may come into play where a critical angle of repose may cause a collapse of regolith flushing all the material off the rock. But even then, we should still see rocks in all different states of regolith build up and that is not the case. And with larger rocks with flat tops, angle of repose issues can't explain (even ignoring electrostatics) why there is no regolith build up.

With regards to regolith being like a snowfall, it is like a snowfall in that the dust particles are being disbursed evenly over the ground. All you have to do is watch one of the many films of the astronauts kicking up dust. The dust falling doesn't discriminate with the rocks and only settle around the rocks. Clearly that should be obvious to everyone. Micrometeorites hit the moon anywhere between 50000 to well over a million times a year depending on who you believe. When they hit, they hit at anywhere between 25000-100000 mph. (I sure would not want to be an astronaut getting hit ) The dust clouds from meteorites (and for that matter meteors) can be enormous as documented by NASA. Are we to believe none of this regolith piles up on the top of rocks yet the bases of these rocks are buried in regolith?

But even then, we should still see rocks in all different states of regolith build up

Why? Once again, justify your expectations.

Quote

With regards to regolith being like a snowfall, it is like a snowfall in that the dust particles are being disbursed evenly over the ground. All you have to do is watch one of the many films of the astronauts kicking up dust.

An astronaut kicking up dust is nothing like the kind of impact events that cause the regolith to form and spread across the surface.

Quote

The dust clouds from meteorites (and for that matter meteors) can be enormous as documented by NASA. Are we to believe none of this regolith piles up on the top of rocks yet the bases of these rocks are buried in regolith?

Yes, because you still don't understand exactly how that buildup is happening. The 'dust clouds' are not like dust clouds here on earth where the fine material disperses and slowly falls to the ground. Every particle of regolith is moving at hundreds or thousands of miles per hour. The majority of that will hit a rock and either bounce off or else create another impact and blast more regolith off. Ultimately it will be far more likely to come to rest on the loose particulate exisiting regolith than a rock that sticks up from it.

But again, answer the question: why are your expectations being at fault not the mosre likely explanation? And when do you plan to get back to your original thread and answer the questions about LM instability still outstanding?

« Last Edit: March 31, 2019, 01:24:35 PM by Jason Thompson »

Logged

"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!" - Dara O'Briain

Hi Abaddon et al., I think you guys are missing the point. Virtually all the Apollo surface photos show the rocks or boulders with no build up of any Regolith layer. You would think, depending on circumstances, rocks would show various depths of Regolith layers. But the photos don’t show that. And contrary to one poster’s comments, the fine micro-particle layer of Regolith build up on the top surface of the moon is from dust particles that are dispersed during meteor and micrometeor impacts. (Atleast that is how the theory goes)

And with all due respect, Abaddon comments that impacts will create these “clean” rocks is somewhat nonsensical. If the impact removes the Regolith off a rock 2 inches above the ground why doesn’t it remove the fine layer of Regolith at the base of the rock 2 inches below? Even if the rock lands there because of a meteor impact, there would be a dispersement of Regolith around the rock. Yet what we see in all these photos are Regolith free rocks and boulders but the bases of these rocks and boulders are buried in a Regolith layer. How can this be? Thanks.

Because it is a result of a violent incident. Somehow you stupidly think that a rock ejected in an impact should magically carry with it any acquired film of dust, as if by magic, undisturbed. And you are unable to see how utterly idiotic that idea is.